Walgreens v sara creek

chose 1 student for each question.

Damage discussion

student 1

1) Do you think monetary damages alone would be an adequate remedy for Walgreen?

Monetary damages would certainly not be an adequate resolution because the competition with Phar-Mor pharmacy would put Walgreen at a serious disadvantage in the forthcoming years. The lease with Sara Creek stated that they wouldn't lease space to another pharmacy and if they break that agreement and only supply monetary damages, Walgreen's loss of profits will eventually exceed the money supplied in the damages. This is unfair because there would be no issues if their lease wasn't violated.

2) What kind of remedy should the court grant Walgreen?

Because of the agreement, Sara Creek shouldn't lease out space to Phar-Mor until the lease ends with Walgreen (if it does because it isn't specified). The court should uphold the lease to Phar-Mor for the reason that it violates the agreement with Walgreen. A property company should not make leases that interfere with one another and it is their responsibility to ensure that is done so.

student 2

In this case walgreens vs. Sara Creek Property. monetary damages alone would not be an adequate remedy for walgreen.The court made a right decision by granting an injunction against the new lease. Sara Creek knowingly signed the contract knowingly and willfully, even though there was a clause about pharmacies in it. The company took the time to think about future business and profits when making this decision. Unless Walgreens terminate this contract which they are not. Sara Creek have to abide by this contract.Monetary damages will not be adequate because going forward in the future the competition would still mean less customers for them, less profit.

I think the court should grant monetary damages in addition to ordering that Sara Creek Property honors the contract.

student 3

Do you think monetary damages alone would be an adequate remedy for Walgreen's?

No, I do not think that monetary damages alone would be an adequate remedy for Walgreen's. Walgreens is a national branch and the profit for a particular store can be greater in value than just the profit gained by a monetary damage suit alone. It would not be adequate because the value of Walgreen's could exceed the value of the monetary damage.

What kind of remedy should the court grant?

The court in this particular Walgreen's appears to have made the right decision in prohibiting the lease and based on the fact that you can see the average amount of sales from years past this was the right decision in this case.

student 4

1- Do you think monetary damages alone would be an adequate remedy for Walgreen? In the case of Walgreen Co. v. Sara Creek Property Co., monetary damages alone would not have been an adequate remedy to the case. While the positives would have been a prevention of monopoly on behalf of Walgreen, and the termination the issue once and for all between the two parties involved, monetary damages would have been impossible to calculate for the remaining years of the contract and been subject to too much speculation: how many customers would Walgreen have lost? how would the judge have estimated the increase in cost of life? what about inflation? or deflation? a lot can change in 10 years...

2- What kind of remedy should the court grant Walgreen? The remedy decided by the court and further confirmed by the appellate court to stop Sara Creek Property Co. from allowing another pharmacy to be placed in the mall was the correct decision. The injunction stopped the defendant from continuing on the path of outright breaching the contract it had signed 20 years earlier with Walgreen. The condition of exclusivity was not a minor one, as it definitely conditioned Walgreen's decision to place one of its stores in that mall.

student 5

1. Do you think monetary damages alone would be an adequate remedy for Walgreen?

No, in the case of Walgreen and Sara Creek monetary damages would not be an adequate remedy for Walgreen for these two reasons: Sara Creek is clearly breaking the exclusivity clause of the contact, and this action could very well put Walgreen out of business at that location. It is very difficult to calculate the loss of future customers and revenue that would otherwise be coming in or the market harm that a location going out business places on the franchise as well as the harm of negative customer perception.

2. What kind of remedy should the court grant Walgreen?

The court needs to grant Walgreen an injunction prohibiting the lease of another pharmacy space that is in violation of the exclusivity clause. This would be the only adequate remedy because in order for monetary damages alone to be an adequate remedy the court would have had to determine how much business the new store would take from Walgreen and the court felt that such a calculation would be almost impossible to figure. Perhaps Walgreens would accept a compromise where the anchor client doesn't have a pharmacy.

Lawrance vs Fox Case

Student 1

Fox is the only stakeholder in this case because he took the risk to challenge the third party agreement on the basis that there wasn't any proof. If he won the case, he wouldn't have to pay and if he lost he would have paid as he agreed to in the first place.

The question present in this case is whether or not a third party may maintain an action upon an agreement.

the solution was yes- a promise made to one for the benefit of someone else, he for whose benefit it is made may bring an action for its breach. Consideration for this agreement was indeed present so the agreement is valid

Fox was trying to get out of paying the loan but in the end was forced to comply. Paying back Lawrence was the proper thing to do even though the law could be more narrowly interpreted to state otherwise. He was trying to test the strength of an oral agreement as opposed to a written one. In this case an oral agreement is just as good as a written contract.

student 2

In this case a debtor (Holly) owed the plaintiff (Lawrence) money. The debtor loaned the defendant (Fox) money, who in turn promised to pay the debt to the plaintiff (Lawrence).

When the defendant did not pay the plaintiff, the plaintiff sued,and won a judgement against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff appealed and the judgement was affirmed.

The plaintiff appealed again and the judgement was again affirmed.

Fox was undoubtedly considering himself and was also challenging the principle that a third party can be the beneficiary of a contract.

The court affirmed the decision because

1. the evidence established the existence of the debt between the debtor and the plaintiff

2. the contract was enforceable - the promise to repay the plaintiff established the consideration

3. since Fox promised Holly he would repay Lawrence in return for consideration (the loan) advanced by the Holly, it was unnecessary for Fox to make a promise to Lawrence to pay him. The promise to Lawrence was implied within the promise to Holly.

 Considering the actions of Fox, the only stakeholder he was considering was himself. His actions would only benefit himself.

student 3 (only if you strongly agree)

 Holly had owed Lawrence money from an earlier agreement, but Holly loaned that money to Fox and Fox orally promised to pay Lawrence the amount the next day. Since Fox did not pay Lawrence, Lawrence sued and won the case. In this case, the third party (Lawrence) benefits from a contract in which the promisor (Fox) agrees to pay the promisee’s (Holly) debt, which technically had became Fox’s debt the moment he borrowed the money from Holly. In legal terms, Lawrence is the creditor beneficiary.

            From an ethical standpoint, Fox was not ethical at all. Fox was considering no other stakeholder but himself, when he decided not to pay Lawrence and claimed “there was no proof tending to show that Holly was indebted to Lawrence.” Oral agreements are just as good as written agreements. Since the money Holly loaned to Fox originally belonged to Lawrence, and Fox orally promised to pay Lawrence that amount the next day, it is Fox’s responsibility to pay Lawrence as he promised. Regardless if there was proof of debt between Holly and Lawrence, the oral agreement between Holly and Fox was that Fox would pay Lawrence.

            In my opinion, since he did not believe that there was a debt between Holly and Lawrence, and he did borrow the money from Holly, he should have at least paid Holly back the next day so she can pay Lawrence. Overall, Fox had a debt to be paid and he did not pay it, regardless if it was to Lawrence or Holly directly. This makes me believe Fox was trying to avoid paying anyone back, and keeping the money to himself.

Applied Sciences

Architecture and Design

Biology

Business & Finance

Chemistry

Computer Science

Geography

Geology

Education

Engineering

English

Environmental science

Spanish

Government

History

Human Resource Management

Information Systems

Law

Literature

Mathematics

Nursing

Physics

Political Science

Psychology

Reading

Science

Social Science

Home

Blog

Archive

Contact

google+twitterfacebook

Copyright © 2019 HomeworkMarket.com